Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 2, 2012 10:30pm-11:00pm PST

10:30 pm
policy or its impact on everyday people. these cuts would be absolutely devastating to our national and local economies. our -- show that sequestration will reduce federal funding direct to san francisco by at least 26.5 million dollars a year, every single year. we would see over $5 million of cut to education, and almost $3 million of cuts from public housing. san francisco's allocation of medicare would be cut by $2 million. funding for the wic workforce program would lose almost $5 million. there would be a $1 million cut to housing services for people with hiv and aids and more than $1 million cut to the community development block grant program. ladies and gentlemen, this is our safety net.
10:31 pm
and our safety net's already strained by years of state cuts and it cannot sustain these additional reductions in federal funding. in addition to the cuts i have just detailed, there are also competitive grants and state pass-throughs that will also see cuts, and totals for which we really cannot estimate at this time. although this is serious business, and we need to get engaged -- although this is serious, we need to get engaged as a city to advocate against request ration -- sequestration taking place. my office is closely engaged with the governor, his white house, members of our federal delegation and other mayors from across the country to make sure they are aware of impacts sequestration would have on san francisco. i welcome all of your -- supervisors in making the case to our elected officials in washington, d.c. about the serious impacts this will have on our residents. thank you, supervisors, and i wish you all a wonderful season
10:32 pm
of giving, of sharing, and of caring for our vulnerable and most needy in our city. thank you very much. >> president chiu: thank you, mr. mayor. colleagues, why don't we go to our next items. madam clerk, could you read the consent agenda. >> clerk calvillo: items 2 through 11 comprise the consent agenda, they're considered routine. if a member requests discussion of a matter it can be considered separately. >> president chiu: would roll call vote on 2 through 11. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye.
10:33 pm
supervisor wiener, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president chiu: those ordinances are passed, resolutions adopted and motions approved. madam clerk, could you call items 12 through 14. >> clerk calvillo: item 12 is a motion affirming certification by the planning commission of the final environmental impact report for the california pacific medical center's long range development plan. item 13 a motion reversing the certification. item 14 is a motion directing preparation of findings reversing the certification. >> president chiu: colleagues you may have heard discussions between the city and cpmc have recommenced recently. at this time this is nothing yet to report so i'd like to entertain a motion to continue these items to december 11. >> so moved. >> president chiu: motion by supervisor campos, seconded by supervisor farrell. without objection that shall be the case. madam clerk, why don't we call items 15 and 39. >> clerk calvillo: item 15 an
10:34 pm
ordinance reducing footage requirements for efficiency building units pursuant to california health and safety code. item 39 is an ordinance amending the planning code regarding efficiency dwelling units with the numerical cap and open common space requirements. this item was considered by the land use and economic development committee on november 19 and was forwarded to the board as a committee report was recommended as amended with a new title. wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. today we have two companion pieces of legislation that will help us to address our housing crisis in san francisco. this legislation is by no means the complete solution but it is one piece of the puzzle. we have a housing affordability crisis in san francisco. we're at a point where one bedroom apartments are going for
10:35 pm
2500 or 3,000 a month. even large studios are going for 2,000 or more a month. we've had housing affordability problem in san francisco for many years and it has gotten even worse than it normally is. we need flexibility in our housing policy to make sure that we are producing enough housing and various types of housing to meet our diverse housing needs in san francisco. i am a big supporter of public investment in affordable housing and with a strong supporter of prop c the affordable housing trust fund and we need to keep moving in that direction. but we will never have enough public dollars to be able to fund our way publicly out of our housing affordability crisis. this legislation will allow for the creation of smaller efficiency units, also known as microunits,"tjpq and will gives some additional flexibility. these units will rent for less
10:36 pm
than one bedrooms and our allow some people, who can't afford current rents to be able to afford something. for some people this could be the difference of being able to stay in a neighborhood and leaving. to be clear, we already have many microunits in san francisco, and they are called roommate situations. we have a lot of three and four bedroom apartments in san francisco, where three, four, five, six or more people are living together, in cramped sharing a small bedroom, and then a whole group of people sharing a bathroom and a kitchen and no living room because it's been converted into a bedroom. this will allow people if they choose to live alone and pay less rent than they would otherwise have to to get a one bedroom. now this legislation has -- had quite a winding road to get
10:37 pm
where we are today, and i've been very grateful for the input from many, many people abouteq%y this legislation. we engaged in extensive negotiations to come up with a piece of legislation that a lot of different people can get behind. i want to particularly thank president chiu for his very productive participation and his staff, as well as gayle gillman from the community housing partnership and sarah short from the housing rights committee. i think we had very productive negotiations and we've come up with a good result. so that result is -- and this is item 39, the planning code amendment, is that for market rate microunits, there will be a cap of 375 units. once we reach 320 units entitled the planning department will be required to go through an analysis of what we produced, where they're located, the type of housing it is.
10:38 pm
student housing, group housing, and affordable housing will not be subject to this cap. once we get near the cap, and once the planning department does its analysis we will then be in a position to decide whether or not to extend this legislation. colleagues, i think that this is a very positive step afford. i am very appreciative of everyone who participated to getting us here and i ask for your support. i do have some technical amendments to the reporting and reauthorization process in terms of clarifying what will go into that analysis, and making clear that the planning department, in conducting its analysis, will collaborate with the mayor's office of housing to make sure we have very complete data, and also just clarifying how the analysis will take place. we've distributed those amendments. they're non-substantive and i would ask we adopt those amendments to item 39.
10:39 pm
i also want to acknowledge sophie haywood is here from it the planning department and i want to thank her for her help and participation as well. thank you. >> president chiu: is there a second? seconded by supervisor farrell. can we take that without objection. without objection that will be the case. i want to thank sarah and gayle and other tenant advocates for work that has been done over the last couple of months to get us where we are today. supervisor campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you. i want to thank supervisor wiener and the folks that have worked on this item. i have to say that this, for me, has not been a clear-cut issue. there has been a lot of different thoughts that i've had about this piecen+jau;ñ of legi. i agree with supervisor wiener, that we do need to provide different alternatives and different types of housing as we're facing the -- continue to face the issue of san francisco
10:40 pm
no longer being an affordable place for so many san franciscans. i had the opportunity to visit with my staff. one of the microunits as they're called, and the units that i visited were actually a little bit larger than what's being proposed here, over 200 square feet. and one of the things that struck me is the fact that even though they do maximum the use of the space, that you're still talking about very small units units that we saw, you were talking about these units potentially being rented at $1500 a month, which is not a lot of space for $1500. so that kind of goes to the crux of my concern, which is, as we're building these microunits,
10:41 pm
are we, in a way, creating or exacerbating the problem by setting pretty high bar in terms of how expensive housing is. if a 230 square feet unit is going to rent for $1500, what does that do to the rest of the places in san francisco. that is the concern. because of that concern, if we had the first item, item 15, being presented to us on its own, i would be voting against the legislation. but i do think that the existence of item 39, and specifically the establishment of a cap is something that at least gives me some comfort. not this -- if you will, that i fear would materialize. i think having a cap would allow us to have the ability to assess whether or not the negative
10:42 pm
impact will actually happen. and so it is with the caveat that it's only until we see what actually happens, once these units are built, that i am willing to give this kind of a pilot a try at this point. i do think that if we're going to try something like this, that done by planning is really critical, and i hope that in doing that analysis, once 325 units have been3 h approved, that not onls planning living up to the letter, but also the spirit of what's embedded in this ordinance in terms of giving us as much information to have a pretty accurate assessment of what if any negative impact there is. i also hope that we also talk about and consider how -- where you build these units can also
10:43 pm
have an impact. depending on the neighborhood that you're talking about, this may be a good fit, it may not. and so i look forward to that information. so with that caveat i will be supporting this piece of legislation, these two pieces of legislation. but, again, in terms of whether or not the negative impactyf%(õl take place, i think that the jury's still out, and i think that we just have to wait and see. but i do want to thank supervisor wiener and all the folks who have worked on this for considering these concerns, and taking them into consideration. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. record to express some of my concerns about this legislation, and its impact on particularly in the south of market, a district that i represent, where i think much of the efficiency dwelling units can be built.
10:44 pm
i think one of the priorities that we have seen, and we've heard over and over again is of course the need for the city to build more affordable multi-unit housing for families and that this is not necessarily an area that our city needs to prioritize. however, i just want to echo my colleagues in saying that i really actually appreciate supervisor wiener's office, working with many of our housing advocates around this issue, to cross the compromise that is coming before us to allow this building -- to go through but to cap the production of these microunits to 375 units. for that reason i will be voting to support this today. but i still wanted to reiterate the concerns that i had shared several months ago on terms of what this policy may mean. first of all i really do hope that if these units do go forward that they're tried out in other naikdz neighborhoods. soma is already experiencing incredible density and is really
10:45 pm
struggling to meet that density with infrastructure, whether it is transit and open space. and i think that it'sá ás÷ realy important that as we experiment or pilot this program, that we really study what the impact to those neighborhoods are, and are we adequately meeting those needs based on this policy. these smaller units would increase population -- could increase population in my district by as much as 32%. and i think that as we do this, it's important that we carefully study this. so i prosecute esh that we are going -- appreciate that we are going to move forward with this in this direction. >> president chiu: supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: thank you. this one is kind of troubling to me. i don't think i read the same memo in everyone else. i thought i lived in a efficiency unit. a family of four, 950 square feet and every inch of space is used. and we're just totally crammed in. i live in a district that is
10:46 pm
6500 more people more dense than it was 10 years ago, and we have a number of houses that has efficiency units for the number of people who are crammed into them. and a great demand i see for housing is not something that i believe is really the kind of units that we're waiving the way here today. i do see that there are benefits for that and in certain parts of san francisco but i think over all this does not make a lot of sense to the san francisco that i know. i also know there are a lot of people who live in this city who are desperately trying to remain san franciscans representatives of this city, and are finding it difficult to be here because of the rising cost o of rent. i don't believe this is any kind of units being created that will actually be able to help that group of people. so i just cannot stomach, you know, supporting this idea, though there might be some folks
10:47 pm
who see benefit. i just will be voting against it. >> president chiu: colleagues, any further discussion? let's take a roll call vote on these two items. madam clerk. >> clerk calvillo: on item 15 and 39 as amended, supervisor avalos, no. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. there are 10 ayes and one no. >> president chiu: these ordinances are passed on the first reading. supervisor wiener, item 16. >> clerk calvillo: item 16 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to monitor
10:48 pm
san francisco's housing preservation and production policies and goals and making the requisite findings. >> president chiu: supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: if i could be called afterwards. i'm not prepared at this moment. >> president chiu: if we could pass over item 16 aened go to item 17. >> clerk calvillo: item 17, an ordinance amending the planning code to -- development fee rates, revise exemptions and credits and clarify implementation and collection. >> supervisor chiu: supervisor wiener 12k3w4r58 thank you. we are continuing to have dialogue around transit impact development fee update. so we've continued it three times before. i anticipate that this will be the final continuance so i move to continue this item two weeks to december 4. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener has made a motion to continue this item to the 4th of december. seconded by supervisor cohen. without objection this item will
10:49 pm
be continued to december 4. item 18. >> the clerk: ordinance appropriating approximately 2.7 million of state reserves for san francisco unified school district for fiscal year 2012-2013. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. first i want to take time to appreciate the incredibly high level engagement of discussion, dialogue, there has been around the supplemental which i introduced last month for san francisco unified school district. this is a supplemental that is asking us to give 2.7 million out of our state reserve fund to assist the school district. both in the recent cuts that have been made for the 21st century for their after school funding and also to assist in helping our first two classes of graduates that have to graduate a through g to graduate. as many of you have read in the press we are finding a large number of students are not on
10:50 pm
track to graduate and our first class to graduate a through g is set in the next few semesters. we have a short timeframe to do that in. we have made this commitment to grow and encourage jobs in the city. we new he had to make sure that our students that are growing up in the city are able to access those jobs because they're graduating college-ready. i want to be clear when we talk about a through g i hear the debate not all kids have to go to college and i agree but all of our kids have to graduate ready for college because you graduate ready for college you're able to access living wage jobs and if you don't have math and science classes that are required a through g you're not going to be able to go into apprenticeship for building and trade programs. so this is an important policy for the city. unfortunately with our first two classes the level of cuts that they've been experienced has not allowed our school district to fully support the program that is needed to do that.
10:51 pm
i think, also, with our city passing really the highest budget that we have seen in our city's history i think it's more important than ever that we really step our support for your families and our kids. that being said i think that there are a lot of conversations in kind of moving targets as we're finding different moneys coming in from the last fiscal year so i wanted to allow greater time for a conversation to happen about both sources of funding and also specifically how this investment that the city is making, in our class of 2014-15 are going to be met over the next two weeks. so i would like to make a motion to continue this item as well to december 4. and i do want to thank my cosponsors, supervisors campos,ñ mar, avalos and olague. >> president chiu: seconded by supervisor mar. further discussion, supervisor campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you very much. i want to begin by thanking
10:52 pm
supervisor kim for bringing this item forward. and let me begin by saying that i have been supportive of this effort to provide additional resources to the san francisco unified school district from the very beginning. that's why i signed on as a cosponsor. but i am not, at the present time, continue to be a cosponsor of this item, in its current form. and let me say why. you know, we saw the headlines in the chronicle today about of 2014, we have about 1900 high school students in the city and county of san francisco that may not be able to graduate, and meet the graduation requirements that were established by the san francisco board of education. we, in san francisco, have seen tremendous economic growth coming out of the most severe recession since the great
10:53 pm
depression, and having served on regional bodies that include other jurisdictions, i can tell you that we are very lucky in san francisco, that we are lucky that we have the resources that we have had, and that we hopefully will continue to have. but, yetd yet, in a city as wealthy as san francisco we have a school district that is facing a crisis. we have about half of our students in this class of 2014 that may not be able to graduate and meet the requirements. san francisco has to do better than that. and even though money is not everything, the ability for us to commit resources as a city is really important. and what i understand of this item is that there is a discussion about whether or not to tie the funding that's underlying this item to the
10:54 pm
rainy day fund. and to the extent that happens, to the extent that there is a connection between this appropriation and the rainy day fund, i will not support it. the rainy day fund was created for the very purpose of this city making public education a priority. the rainy day fund, as was enacted by the board of supervisors, as was crafted by then supervisor ammiano has to stand on its own terms, it has its own triggers, its own mechanisms for deciding what exactly the school district gets. and to the extent that we are trying to use this supplemental appropriation as a09( #ta way of minimizing the amount given to the school district through the rainy day fund i have a problem with that. so to the extent that this item comes back to us in the form where it is tied to the rainy day fund, i will not be supporting it, and i would
10:55 pm
encourage parents and folks in the public school community to make sure that they get involved in terms of what happens with this item, because to the extent that we set a precedent here at this board of supervisors, that going forward we're going to tie future funding of the scriblth to the rainy day fund i think we are setting a very dangerous principle, a dangerous principle that ultimately would undermine and could undermine the rainy day fund and its purpose. so i look forward to having an ongoing discussion about this item, but if it is, as i have heard, that there is going to be a connection made to the rainy day fund, i will not support that. and i think that there are many people in the education community, in the public school system here, who should have reasons to be concerned about that connection. we need to make public education a priority. and even though we're a separate government entity from the school district, we have an
10:56 pm
obligation to our kids to make sure that there is proper funding of education at the local level, and that ensures -- that requires that we protect what the rainy day fund has done for our public schools, what it can do going forward, and to tie it to this supplemental i think is simply a mistake and is something that could have long-term negative consequences that i hope we don't get to. >> president chiu: supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: i want to thank supervisor kim and her staff for working so diligently on this with the school district. this supplemental funding will help counseling and staff assistance for students who have stumbled and need help to get back on track to graduate. this is the example of the safety net that we as supervisors have ability to utie to help those in need. we had an achievement gap for african-american students and we
10:57 pm
heard data about the achievement gaps, english language learners, latino students and our api students. the number of students that are at risk of not completing the a through g requirements and therefore at risk of not graduating is unacceptable. by adopting this legislation, we have the chance to put our money where our mouth is and support children and families in san francisco. by voting for this i hope to elevate equal access to education to the forefront of all of our minds. it is critically important for the city to step up where it can to fill the gaps and help students on their paths toward achievement. this legislation truly represents a solution based agenda that will serve our agenda that will serve our children and ensure that we asew to success, particularly for students of color and low income students. i am happy to support this item as it demonstrates our committed partnership with the school district to include outcome for students in san francisco.
10:58 pm
>> president chiu: supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you. i wanted to also thank supervisor kim and coleman advocates and the board of education commissioners, i know with vice president rachel norton, sandy -- stepped with us on the steps today for the cities to step up and support the most vulnerable high school students that are in danger of not graduating, i think about 1900 students as the chronicle stmed two days ago. but i am sensitive to supervisor campos' comments about the potential threats to the rainy day fund and imhoping with the week's continuance that we try to work on this issue. i know -- lee, one of the -- and sf usd has developed an action plan to make sure students have potential to meet a through g, csu requirements that we support as many people as we can with
10:59 pm
not only after school programs but on line and other types of supplemental support so that we maximize our support so we make sure students don't fall through the cracks and they could earn their diplomas for high school. i agree with supervisor olague that this is a issue about equity. it's about supporting not only african-american and latino high learner high school students as well and i think it's an important effort that we make a statement as a city that we support our school district especially the most vulnerable in our communities. i also wanted to lastly thank the many parents and youth advocates, the youth commission and many others for raising this issue as an important justice issue for all of us and i will be proudly support the issue measure but i look forward to dialogue about not threatening the rainy day fund and also making sure that we advocate to reauthorize so-called